ORDER : V. Sujatha, J. The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief : “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent D.Dis.No.10733/2010/E4 dated 09.01.2014 as illegal, arbitrary, without following Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules1977, violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.0.10 cents out of Ac.1.35 cents in Sy.No.49/2 situated at Kakkalapalli Village, Anantapuram Mandal & district and to pass such other order or orders…” 2. While admitting the writ petition on 06.02.2015, this Court granted interim order directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.0.10 cents out of Ac.1.35 cents in Sy. No.49/2 situated at Kakkalapalli Village, Anantapuram Mandal and District till pending disposal of the writ petition. 3. In view of the said interim order, it appears that the petitioner is in continuous possession of the subject land. 4. When the matter came up for hearing, the only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order in 2nd D.Dis.No.10733/2010/E4, dated 09.01.2014, is passed by the 2nd respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioner though the petitioner have been in possession since 2001. Thereafter, only when the revision petition was filed by the 6th respondent, the 2nd respondent without giving any notice issued the impugned orders directing to restore the land in an extent of Ac.1.35 cents (including the subject land claimed by the petitioner i.e., Ac.0.10 cents) in Sy. No.49-2 of Kakkalapalli Village, Anantapur Mandal, to the legal heirs of the original assignee i.e. Sri Gundlamadugu Peddaiah S/o Narappa of Ananthapuram as per clauses (a) and (b) of Section 4(1) of POT Act 9/97. 5. On perusal of the material available on record, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the interim orders granted by this Court on 06.02.2015, it appears that the petitioner herein is not made party in the Revision Petition filed by the 6th respondent herein before the 2nd respondent herein-Joint Collector. 5. On perusal of the material available on record, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the interim orders granted by this Court on 06.02.2015, it appears that the petitioner herein is not made party in the Revision Petition filed by the 6th respondent herein before the 2nd respondent herein-Joint Collector. It is also evident that the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector without issuing any notice to petitioner as required under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977, passed impugned order which is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. This Court feels it appropriate to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order in D.Dis.No.10733/2010/E4, dated 09.01.2014, and directing the respondents not to dispossess of the petitioner from his land, if at all he is in possession as on today, except by following the due process of law. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.